| Subcribe via RSS
Bob Crow, speaking to Ian Hislop:
“I have more in common with a Chinese labourer than [I do with] someone like yourself…”
Annual salary of Bob Crow:
£105, 679
Tags: Bob Crow, Chinese labourers, fat cats, trades unionsThe secure tenancy debate in one sense is very simple. Social housing is and should be provided for those with real need who cannot house themselves. If you don’t have real need you should not be in social housing.
There is for example a millionaire weather forecaster living in Camberwell who before he made his money was a tenant activist. He has secure tenancy. He could well afford to pay his own way in the world and is blocking use of that home to those on the waiting list.
There is no social liberal argument that can be constructed to defend this situation. It is not tackling poverty, it is not creating the widest possible distribution of wealth.
For socialists like the Camberwell squatter, there is a militant belief that all housing should be nationalised, they are just waiting for that to happen. But liberals believe in a caring supportive state not state ownership as an end in itself.
Simon Hughes intervention today is predominantly about process. How dare David Cameron start a debate without consulting the Liberal Democrat party conference… etc… yawn… some might just call this politics.
His underlying concern though is clearly the high level of social housing in his constituency and the perceived threat this announcement will have for his electorate. In that regard he is also concerned about the security of his own tenancy… and that is also politics.
David Cameron’s actual announcement though should reassure him. Existing secure tenancies will not be challenged. The millionaire will not be thrown into the harsh wilderness of reasonable market rents on the same estate from right-to-buy landlords.
Most arguments to defend the feudal privilege fail to convince. Breaking up communities is top of the list. All social housing ‘communities’ are constructs and have been regularly broken up since inception; through needs-based assessment, regeneration, right to buy, and upward mobility.
And thank-goodness, preserving communities based on welfare is a sure route to entrenching poverty, undermining the sustainability of the local economy, and creating sink estates. It is a policy of segregation and strife.
Simon Hughes should be thinking less about how to defend the status quo in Bermondsey, a product of decades of Labour gerrymandering and destructive housing experiments, and more about encouraging mobility and opportunity.
What Bermondsey, Camberwell and Peckham need are more aspirational young families, mixed housing, and opportunities for sustainable job creation not dependent on the state. Not policies like secure tenancy that concentrate poverty and create a weird culture of privilege without aspiration
How that debate happens I care not, and Simon Hughes should welcome the opportunity the Prime Minister has provided to showcase the public-private partnerships that have regenerated vast swathes of his own constituency without building more Council Housing.
Gisele Bündchen has been in the news for reasons other than being pretty and well dressed and probably-airbrushed, recently.
According to the Brazilian supermodel, “I think there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed their babies for six months.”
This is a typical example of knee-jerk conservativism: a desire to use power to impose virtue on others. To re-frame this all-too-common viewpoint into a general statement: “I think that x is important/valuable/worthwhile, therefore the law should require that you do x as well.”
Let us take as read the justified criticism by Pam Lacey of the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers, who noted that “Some women have medical reasons as to why they can’t. A lot of new mothers hit a problem.”
Others, one might add, simply don’t take to it. Or they may not be available to breast feed whenever the child is hungry. In some cases, it is preferable to the child’s development that the mother does not spend six months at home – after all, not everybody has a $150m fortune and the resulting freedom from the need to provide materially for their family.
What matters to very young children more than anything else is that they are nurtured in a happy home, rather than one where their mother is stressed and depressed by having to make decisions that they would not choose.
However, this is not the extent of Ms. Bündchen’s error. Imposing breastfeeding with the threat of force is bad enough, but we need also to consider her demand for “worldwide law”. There are very good reasons why we do not have worldwide laws. For one thing, the law is best made and administered at a level closest to those that it will affect, which is why liberals support devolution, subsidiary, state rights etc. A second and related point is that many laws are culturally-specific: what applies in Guyana may not apply in Guinea.
But perhaps most importantly, a single world government (necessary for any meaningful “worldwide law”) would be so far removed from those that it governed that it would inevitably become either a bureaucracy (in the strict sense of the word, with officials exercising power without constraint) or an autocracy (even if the ruler were elected).
Ms. Bündchen has since rushed out to ‘clarify’ her words: “I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge,” she wrote on her website, though whether she thinks their experiences and opinions count for much is doubtful, considering she would use legal sanctions to impose her will on them. She also said that she regretted that her comment sounded so “black and white”, as though banning a practice was nuanced. “My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with the law”, she added, having previously said “there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed”. One might doubt her subsequent sincerity.
If Ms. Bündchen were not a famous supermodel, it is unlikely that we would ever have heard her authoritarian suggestion. Unfortunately, like participants at a Miss World competition, it seems that we have to listen to her views of the world as well. Beauty is hardly a prerequisite for authoritarian views, but if you want to get your ideas heard, it clearly helps.
The headline (above) is, admittedly, slightly paraphrased–but this is essentially Danny Finkelstein’s message in The Times today:
The LDs may be dropping in the polls, but they’re IN POWER and should be happy with that.
For those who don’t have access beyond the pay-wall, the Fink argues that the whole point of being high in the polls is to get into government. Thus it’s better to be in government and on 14% in the polls, than out of government and on 20% in the polls. Popularity is simply a means to an end, so if you have achieved the end, this is what matters.
He also claims that a drop in popularity is inevitable when in government, especially for the “junior partner” of a Coalition.
With the rise in LD fortunes in recent times, the Party, he argues, had to make a choice–to remain a Left-ist protest vote (with the option of siding with Labour) or to position itself in the Centre, allowing the option of holding power with either “main” party.
I slightly disagree on the Left-Right model: it’s up to the LDs, surely, to promote the liberal elements of the “Left”–greater civil liberties, a fairer voting system, constitutional reform, tax reform, penal reform, liberal policies on migration (well said, Vince!), less reactionary views on the EU and so on. This is our raison d’etre.
Finkelstein does, in fairness, understand this. He proposes that liberalism can be seen as Centre ground, and that this can appeal to the electorate:
“There is an audience — and an agenda — for a centre party that offers voters a chance to liberalise the others” he says.
The issue of what happens in subsequent elections is extremely pertinent. The LDs should not simply be grateful for 4/5 years in power, and then crawl back to irrelevance. The Cons can’t have their gluten-free soya cake and eat it. Our presence in the Coalition changes everything, and the question of what we do at future elections won’t go away.
On this question, and the dilemma of the polls, I am (for once) on the fence. Affecting government policy is great–but the question is how to make this a more permanent affair. Thoughts below, if you will.
Tags: coalition, Finklestein, Liberal Democrats, liberalism, opinion pollsBack in May, all Lib Dem MP’s (bar one abstention) voted in favour of a coalition with the Conservatives. The Conservatives gave away a lot to the Lib Dem’s to secure the deal (Simon Hughes was quoted just this week saying that he and others could not believe just how much was being offered).
Part of the ”quid pro quo” however was that the Lib Dems would accept Michael Gove’s plans for “free schools” - essentially allowing schools more independence from local councils and enabling parents to set up their own free schools. Something that a number of Tory councillors were none too happy with it should be said.
At conference activists will however challenge the MP’s decision. A motion has been put forward that states (according to Newsnight as I have not seen conference papers as yet) “Local Authorities should retain strategic oversight of the provision of school places” and “continue to exercise their arms length support of state schools“. On free schools the motion calls on “all Liberal Democrats to urge people not to take up this option“.
Well we would have been living in la la land had we not expected some form of left wing gnashing of teeth at conference - and even more foolish to imagine that the Federal Conference Committee would not find a way to allow at least one motion to find its way onto the agenda.
Will there be a media scrum around it ? You betcha. Newsnight have already started - you can see it below - and it wont stop there. Will Liberal Vision find itself (again!) on the side of the leadership? (looks likely….. darn it!). Will the activists win? (Possibly). Will it make any difference to the short term? Unlikely. Even if the motion passes, frankly the Coalition deal out ranks a motion at conference - so it’s a gesture at best. Though one the Coalition can ill afford at such a tricky time in its life.
And how very Lib Dem to have a motion that calls on its members to “urge” others to do, or not do, something. Why we need to pass a motion in order to “urge” is a little beyond me.
Does it highlight that it is time that the Lib Dems grew up? Definitely. The truth is that the media will portray us as a bunch of loons who prefer permanent opposition to power. And they might be right. About part of the party at least.
But surely it’s about time policies and motions are voted on by the WHOLE party (as I have argued before)…not just a tiny minority of members, with a score to settle, willing and able to make the journey to Beetle land. Come on Nick, Simon or whoever is in charge of the party right now - time bring the Lib Dems kicking and screaming into the 21st century - and get some real democracy (we are so keen to bang on about to others) into this party. Let people have their debate at conference by all means - then put it to the vote of all members. That way we can be sure our policies reflect those of the 60,000 not just the disgruntled few hundred.
In the mean time be prepared for a rocky ride and a media frenzy in Liverpool.
Oh…well said Julian Harris on Newsnight.
Tags: Huntingdon Lib Dem motion, Julian Harris, Michael Gove, Newsnight, Party ConferenceJulian Harris (Director of our very own LV) has been interviewed for tonight’s Newsnight, looking at the Lib Dems conference agenda and what it means for our role in the Coalition. Goodness only knows what that means …or indeed what he has said…..fingers crossed!
It comes to my attention that the Foreign Office (FCO) are employing a Digital Campaign Manager for Climate Change.
Jolly good.
As part of her no-doubt-vital remit, she’s posting stuff on Twitter under the name “Climate Charlotte”.
Click here for this crucial service: http://twitter.com/2degreelimit
Note: the above appeared on Guido this morning. Apologies for not citing, only just became aware of this.
It seems like you kids just can’t get enough of us. Due to going over our limit, this blog went down at the end of last month, and yesterday too.
Thankfully we’ve given them a shed load’a cash to stop this happening again, so fingers crossed.
Thanks for your patience.
Democracy is a term we use to dignify the mechanisms by which the few govern the many. The many generally bear this subjection with stoicism. Occasionally they rebel and seek to establish a genuinely populist movement. But soon the new populism falls into the hands of its own elite, self-serving, self-referential and indignant when challenged.
Jonathan Clark
Hall Distinguished Professor of British History
University of Kansas
After and over the best part of 400 years we in Britain managed to construct a relatively free civil and civilised society in which religious and secular life could flourish in public and mutual agreement and disagreement, vigorously and occasionally scatologically critical the one of the other.
Now, however, this public debate has been circumscribed by classifying such argument and such difference as expressing little more than ‘hatred’, a new criminal offence: And, alerted to a looming illiberality by a series of ‘hate’ laws relating to race, religion, gender, age, and physical disability and by the ludicrous ambitions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, all freedom-loving people would be well-advised to check on the legality of their public utterances before they make them – hypocrisy being the best policy.
In our new publication, we show how, in pursuit of ‘hatred’, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service destroyed the free speech and independent existence of two ordinary citizens of Liverpool, a story pregnant with implications for all of us. When messrs Cameron and Clegg get round to their promised ‘Bonfire of the Banalities’, then the laws relating to religious hatred in particular should be the first into the flames.
As these two bold politicians told the House of Commons in June 2005, these laws ‘disproportionately curtail freedom of expression, worsen community relations as different religious and belief groups call for the prosecution of their opponents, create uncertainty as to what words or behaviour are lawful and lead to the selective application of the law in a manner likely to bring it into disrepute’. Our book looks to demonstrate how true this is.
Jon Gower Davies is a former lecturer at the University of Newcastle and former Labour Councillor on Newcastle City Council.
Tags: A New Inquisition, civitas, Jon Gower Davies
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
Elsewhere on Lib Dem Blogs...